Posted 5 years ago on Sept. 19, 2012, 10:20 a.m. EST by shoozTroll
(17632)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

"Sen. Sanders said that Romney is representing a philosophy that people are too dumb and have to be taught to work, and that if you are rich and powerful you have a right to rule, you get it all. If you are in the middle, working class, or low income we’re going to teach you a lesson."

You're welcome and re. "It is a damn good thing Bernie Sanders isn't running for President." - and at the same time and paradoxically it is also a Damn Shame that he's not standing for POTUS too ! Sad sigh !

One of the funniest things about OWS is the infighting, in a group totally obsessed with consensus-building. Somehow I'm just not surprised to see people attacking one of Occupy's most powerful supporters.

I think maybe it's just shooz. But he tends to be so incoherent that it's hard to figure out what he's trying to say, so I'm barely even sure whether he's attacking Bernie Sanders or what. (See below.)

Shooz seems to mainly just be attacking me in that little thing on the bottom of this page. But what's this whole page about if he's not attacking Senator Sanders for being one of Mitt Romney's "ruling-class friends"?

What I just said was not support for Mitt Romney, but I assume that what I said was enough of a transgression from the groupthink around here that I'm going to spend the next 24 hours reiterating that I'm not a Romney supporter and that I voted for Obama in 2008. And at least two people will refuse to believe me. All because I said, "No, I think that's a distortion."

I'm not trying to paint you as anything and I would appreciate if you would not try to paint me either. I wasn't asking if you supported Romney. I was just curious as to your opinion/interpretation about what he said in the leaked statement. If you don't like reiterating yourself you should stop doing it.

'No I think that's a distortion' . You're right. I was asking your opinion and instead put my own words in your mouth. Clean the slate. What do you think of his statement.

I think that his statement was factually true but a lot of people are looking as hard as they can for ways to spin everything that comes out of either candidate's mouth, so whatever he was talking about is irrelevant. Like when Romney was talking about his belief in providing options for people to select health care providers, but people jumped on the phrase, "I like firing people", and twisted it into something else entirely.

(You're not one of the two specific people who I expect to call me a Romney supporter for the next couple of days for saying all of this.)

Do you think it is factually true that these 47% of Americans 'believe the government is responsible for them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it'? The implication here is that people are ok with this situation.

Do you believe it is factually true that 'I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives'. This clearly implies that he thinks that half the country or so does not believe in personal responsibility.

You think people are 'looking as hard as they can for ways to spin' this? I would say his comments are a giant tell. No spin necessary.

This is nothing like 'I like firing people'. Which I would agree was overblown and out of context. Same way 'you didn't build that' was overblown and out of context. But these latest statements are completely different.

Not only did he just dis half the population, about half of those we can expect are voters. And about half of those are probably Republicans! Holy Mother of Campaign Meltdowns! This is totally different. You really think this is the same as 'I like firing people'??

I think Romney's statements are at least partially true - many do get the impression that we have created this general feeling of entitlement. The big question, in my opinion, is why this 47% is not paying federal income tax. The question goes to the very heart of what it means to a "citizen" - those who are capable and do no participate, who do not contribute, should not in any way extract a benefit.

In 1977 I was living on less than 5k a year; I had a car without floorboards, and no bed to even sleep on, but I paid federal income tax and have the returns to prove it - why is it that half our population does not pay federal tax now? And how do we reconcile this with status as "citizen"? What does it mean to be a citizen in America? Does it mean that if you earn less you are "entitled";- that the government should just reallocate revenue to afford you free benefit of whatever you desire? And if we do this, what incentive is there to improve?

This part of what he said did remind me a lot of the Occupy mentality:

47% ... who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government is responsible for them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.

That's accurate. I've spent the last year listening to Occupiers say all of those things. About being victims, about being entitled to all of those things. I'm not really sure why that would be so offensive to people around here when it's what people here have been saying for the last year. Using the specific phrase "personal responsibility" opened me up to countless attacks here, in which people said the same things that Romney was talking about.

You didn't answer my questions. Why are you telling me about other 'people around here' and what they think? If I wanted to know what other 'Occupiers' say', I would have asked you that. That was not my question.

Do you believe, as Romney clearly implied - that 47% of Americans are ok with being on government assistance? Or that 47% of Americans do not believe in taking personal responsibility for their lives? If you don't want to answer my questions then just say so.

I do not think the issue is about 'personal responsibilty', as Romney believes. I think the issue is about government assistance as a social responsibility as it relates to unemployment/underemployment and the ability for people to make a living wage. Without which, we as a society, have determined that government and society as a whole, have a role and an interest in providing some assistance for basic living standards, in times of need. For the benefit of society. Because the alternative would be even costlier to society.

I do not believe that Romney believes in the societal interest of the needy in times of need. I think he believes it's every man for himself. Sink or swim. I think he believes that forcing people who are unable to swim, with the threat of sinking, pulling away their life vest will help them to swim. I don't even think this works in the water. People are taught the skills to swim first.

I think that Romney completely ignorantly ignores or does not have the slightest understanding of the economic reality of the poor and working poor and the unemployed and underemployed. The affects of globalization and the structural changes that are happening in the economy with respect to the shift from a manufacturing based economy to a knowledge based economy. I think he is devoid of the intellectual and emotional capacity to have any understanding of how this is affecting peoples lives. And simplistically believes that pulling away the life preserver will magically make these structural changes adjust themselves overnight. Just by the sheer force of him being him in the White House.

'if we win on November 6th there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back, and we'll see—without actually doing anything—we'll actually get a boost in the economy'

I avoid all partisanship in general, and with you I'm especially cautious about you attempting to position me as your ideological enemy. Besides, I would never blindly "support" any politician. The real issues are much more complex than just picking between one of two teams, or candidates.

That's a topic that I would avoid discussing with you because I don't see Senator Sanders' political affiliation as an obstacle to you trying to position me as your ideological enemy so that you can have a flame war about how the Koch brothers are ruling the world through the Tea Party or whatever.

If I learned anything over the last 24 hours about you, it's that you're never going to get that deep into any conversation because you're too distracted by bright, shiny objects. So I'm avoiding distracting you. If all that you got out of what I was trying to say yesterday was that you think that I'm a tea bagger then that's really sad and I'm not going to intentionally get into another idiotic fiasco like that with you.

Yes actually my comment had everything to do with what the article that you posted said. The article that you posted accused the gay, democratic-socialist senator from Vermont, who has vocally supported Occupy Wall Street, of being one of Mitt Romney's "ruling-class friends". I just think that's pretty amusing.